The Hindu : National : "Don't entertain plea against court martial conviction"

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Apr 22, 2007
ePaper


<![if lt IE 4]> <script src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <noscript> <a href="http://servedbyadbutler.com/go2/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691"> <img src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve.ibs/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=img" border="0" height="60" width="468" alt=""></a> </noscript><![endif]>

National

National

"Don't entertain plea against court martial conviction"

Legal Correspondent

If proceedings conform to procedure, court must stay its hand: apex court

New Delhi: Courts must not entertain appeals challenging conviction in court martial proceedings, the Supreme Court has held.

"Though court martial proceedings are subject to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court martial is not subject to the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227. If a court martial has been properly convened and there is no challenge to its composition and the proceedings are in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the High Court or for that matter any court must stay its hand," said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta.

"Proceedings of a court martial are not to be compared with the proceedings in a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, where adjournments have become a matter of routine though that is also against the provisions of law."

It was rightly said the court martial remained a specialised part of the overall mechanism by which military discipline was preserved.

"It is the special need for the armed forces that a person subject to the Army Act is tried by court martial for an act, which is an offence under the Act."

Equally fair

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat, said,

"A court martial has also the same responsibility as any court to protect the rights of the accused charged before it and to follow the procedural safeguards. If one looks at the provisions of law relating to court martial in the Army Act, the Army Rules, Defence Service Regulations and other administrative instructions of the Army, it is manifestly clear that the procedure prescribed is perhaps equally fair if not more than a criminal trial provides to the accused."

The Bench said, "When there is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction, it is unnecessary to examine if pre-trial investigation was adequate or not.''

``The requirement of proper and adequate investigation is non-jurisdictional and any violation thereof does not invalidate the court martial unless it is shown that the accused has been prejudiced or a mandatory provision has been violated. The High Court should not allow the challenge to the validity of conviction and sentence of the accused when evidence is sufficient, court martial has jurisdiction over the subject matter and has followed the prescribed procedure and it is within its powers to award punishment."

The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by acting Naik Pradeep Singh against a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment rejecting his petition questioning his dismissal.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National